QUESTION PERIOD — Public Services and Procurement
Procurement Process
April 17, 2024
Senator Gold, as I said in my recent speech on Justin Trudeau’s corrupt government, which has now been viewed over 650,000 times, McKinsey & Company, a consulting firm, is one of the largest beneficiaries of this corruption.
Leader, you may not like it when I raise the Trudeau government’s widespread corruption, but, thankfully, the Procurement Ombud saw fit to investigate the over $100 million that McKinsey received from taxpayers. He now reports that there was a strong perception of favouritism towards McKinsey in contracting. He found that 18 contracts worth $43 million were awarded without any justification for why they were sole sourced.
Leader, will the government finally put a stop to this corruption?
I tire, Senator Plett, of you using words that are not founded in fact. You are perfectly free and you have the privilege, because of your position in this chamber, to continue to speak of corruption, but the facts don’t bear that out. To your question, the auditor said clearly that there could be a perception of favouritism for two Canada Border Services Agency contracts, and otherwise found insufficient information to determine whether there was anything else untoward.
The government takes concerns about McKinsey contracts seriously. The government is strengthening its policies to address the administrative issues identified in the internal review, and, indeed, those reviews have shown absolutely no evidence of political interference.
Once again, important questions can be raised, but let’s be careful about our language and that it is based on facts.
What I tire of, leader, is your absolute non‑answers when we ask legitimate questions. Last year, a public servant at the immigration department said this to the media about McKinsey:
We had a few presentations on very generic, completely vapid stuff. They arrived with nice colours, nice presentations and said they would revolutionize everything. . . . In the end, we don’t have any idea what they did.
Leader, they received millions from taxpayers. Whether you like the language or not, they got millions from taxpayers. No one knew what they did in return. If that’s not corruption, leader, what is?
I don’t know why I’m standing here giving lessons on the meaning of the English language. There’s a difference between corruption, Senator Plett, and a difference between allegations or even evidence that things were done either inefficiently or improperly. You’re implying motives, and serious motive, in your use of language, and that is not founded in the facts. It is your privilege to do so, and congratulations —
